KKV's List

  1. Choose a hypothesis seen as important by scholars in the literature but for which no one has completed a systematic study. ("literature"?)
  2. Choose a hypothesis in the literature that we suspect is been adequately confirmed and investigate whether it is indeed false.
  3. Attempt to resolve or provide further evidence of one side of a controversy in the literature—perhaps demonstrate that the controversy was unfounded from the start.
  4. Design research to illuminate or evaluate unquestioned assumptions in the literature.
  5. Argue that an important topic has been overlooked in the literature and then proceed to contribute a systematic study to the area.
  • A question that
    • people care (and/or?)
    • has not been studied (and/or?)
    • the existing confirmation might be wrong (and/or?)
    • relates to one side (and/or?)
    • the premise is wrong (and/or?)
    • something is missing (and/or?)

Why does Geddes feel they are useless?

"It assumes, however, that the relevant literature really does contain a considerable accumulation of theory and stylized facts." (Geddes 2010, 29)

  • Why does this bother Geddes?
    • The literature contains only a little consensus.
    • Vague in definition and empirics.
    • Opinions rather than theory.
  • What's the dangers?
    • Lost the main points.

So, Geddes suggested

  • An intense but unfocused curiosity, intuition, or indignation
  • Being creative: observation \(\times\) conjecture
    • Model?

When is the literature useful?

  • Stimulus

  • Expectation

Why is inductive research useful?

  • Inductive?
    • prevailing?
    • Danger?
      • Correlation is not causation.
  • Analytic narratives
    • Tracing the mechanism
    • Focusing on the fundamental unit (contrary to Babbie?)
    • Next step?
      • Empirical evidence

Example: Step 1. Question Hunting

"No bourgeois, no democracy" (1966, 418): The likelihood of democracy increases once the size of the bourgeoisie has passed a certain threshold.

  • When
    • Democracies would not be expected to occur before the industrial and commercial revolutions.
  • Where
    • The establishment of democracies would be expected first in the countries that industrialized first.
    • Democracy would be less likely in countries in which wealth comes mainly from the export of mineral resources.
    • Democracy would be less likely in countries in which foreigners or pariah capitalists excluded from the political community own most enterprises.
  • How
    • In the contemporary world, democracy would be more likely in more industrialized countries.
    • The likelihood of democracy would decline as state ownership of economic resources rose.

Step 2. Research Strategy

  • Big question to rigorous investigation
  • One process at a time
  • Research your question like cooking a dish

Let's cook it

Dish: Authoritarinism transition

  • Literature: cook book
    • Expectation: Transition are determined by the important groups
    • Stimulus:
      • no cross-national study, no systematic comparison
      • no complete process
  • Narrow down (Simplification)
    • Key of transition: battles between winning and losing groups
    • How?
      • Bargaining and negotiation
      • Overtime, multiparty
    • Why?
      • Internal? External?

  • One piece at a time:
    • The politics within authoritarian governments, that is, how political rivalries, policy disagreements, and bargaining within different kinds of authoritarian regimes affect the incentives of authoritarian rulers to liberalize.
      • Method requirement: comparison
  • Build the theory:
    • Literature in (again)
      • Not important divisions within the regime
      • Officials want to maintain in office
        • Get sufficient supports from the constituents
  • Further narrow down
    • Different leaders, different interests.

Wrap up

  • A question with emotional response.
  • Use the literature cautiously.
  • One piece at a time.

A practical way to identify a good question

  • "Do you want to talk it with your friends?"